Natural England yesterday lodged an appeal against the judgment in the Easton Bavents High Court case brought last month by Mr Peter Boggis.

Shaun Thomas, Regional Director of Natural England, said: “The High Court’s judgment has unintended consequences that go far beyond the specifics of the case. It threatens to stifle the ways in which advice and expert opinion can be used to inform planning and development decisions and poses a real risk of unnecessary bureaucracy. Natural England wishes to work with Mr Boggis to find a solution to the predicament he faces, but we need to resolve the unworkable precedent that the judgment threatens to create.”

Contrary to recent publicity, the High Court was not asked to determine whether Mr Boggis should be allowed to build sea defences at Easton Bavents in an attempt to save his home from erosion. Instead, it considered whether Natural England acted lawfully in designating parts of the fossil-rich Easton Bavents cliffs as a site of national geological conservation importance. In the High Court hearing, the Hon. Mr Justice Blair confirmed that Natural England was entirely justified in notifying the Easton Bavents site on the conservation grounds that it did.

However in his judgment, Hon. Mr Justice Blair referred to comments made by Natural England officers at the time of notification of the site suggesting that they would be unlikely to consent to sea defences being built in front of the Easton Bavents site. Although no consent application has ever been made by Mr Boggis for Natural England to formally consider, Hon. Mr Justice Blair ruled that these comments amounted to a plan and, as such, an assessment of the effects of this plan on a nearby European Habitats Directive designated conservation site should have been carried out as part of the notification process.

Natural England disputes this part of the judgment and is concerned that Justice Blair’s definition of what constitutes a plan for the purposes of the Habitats Directive has been cast so wide that advice and consultation given in routine development and planning situations could easily become compromised by the need to carry out environmental assessments that are entirely unnecessary.

Shaun Thomas, concluded: “Natural England sympathises with the situation Mr Boggis faces but we believe that sea defences of the type and of the scale that he has put in place should be assessed by appropriate planning authorities. We would encourage Mr Boggis to make a suitable planning application to Waveney District Council to enable them to judge the matter and properly weigh the interests of the Easton Bavents conservation site, of adjacent homeowners and of the ways in which his sea defences impact coastal and erosion processes elsewhere along the coast.”

A retired engineer dubbed ‘King Canute” after winning the right to protect his cliff top home from the sea faces a challenge from the Government agency in charge of conservation.

Peter Boggis, 77, spent tens of thousands of pounds building earth barriers to protect his home at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, Suffolk, and those of his neighbours which are threatened by erosion to the cliffs on they stand.

He claimed victory in the High Court last month when a judge ruled that it was unlawful to allow the houses to be sacrificed to the sea for scientific reasons.

However, Natural England, who want the fossil rich cliffs to wear away exposing strata of soil and rock for study, have now announced they are to appeal the case.

Shaun Thomas, regional director of Natural England, said the original decision could impact on future efforts to protect the countryside.

He said: “The High Court’s judgment has unintended consequences that go far beyond the specifics of the case. It threatens to stifle the ways in which advice and expert opinion can be used to inform planning and development decision and poses a real risk of unnecessary bureaucracy.

“Natural England wishes to work with Mr Boggis to find a solution to the predicament he faces, but we need to resolve the unworkable precedent that the judgment threatens to create.”

Mr Boggis spent tens of thousands of pounds protecting his home and that of his neighbours with earth barriers.

However Mr Thomas said the plans were never properly assessed.

He concluded: “Natural England sympathises with the situation Mr Boggis faces but we believe that sea defences of the type and of the scale that he has put in place should be assessed by appropriate planning authorities.”

Story by Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent in the Telegraph

On crumbling coastline from Humberside to Felixstowe they will cheer his name: Peter Boggis, 77, retired engineer and gallant knight battling for the right of all Englishmen to defend their homes against the encroaching sea. Mr Boggis has spent at least £400,000 building clay barriers to defend his house and his hamlet against the North Sea. He has spent another eyewatering sum fighting a legal battle against Natural England, the government body that argued that his defences were unlawful.

It designated his stretch of coastline a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and argued that, as such, it was in the interests of science to allow the ground beneath his home to erode naturally. Yesterday, in the High Court, he won a remarkable victory. Mr Justice Blair rejected the arguments of Natural England on a technicality. Both sides now plan to appeal.

Last night, Mr Boggis returned to his home in Easton Bavents, north of Southwold, and declared himself “mildy elated”. The price of defending his home, which may be worth £300,000 if his defences remain, and £30,000 if they are removed, has never deterred him. The principle was far more valuable.

“I’m fighting in the interests of everyone who lives on the coast of England,” he said. “If we can save one inch of the coast of Britain it’s worth it. If we can save one house it’s worth as much as a castle anywhere else.”

Up and down the coast of England yesterday, coastal defenders cheered the man whom they have called the Clifftop Crusader.

In the Norfolk village of Happisburgh, which has already lost 26 properties to the sea, Malcolm Kerby, head of a local coastal defence action group, said: “We’re absolutely delighted. When a man takes on the Goliath of the Government and beats it, it just makes you think that perhaps England still exists.”

John Gummer, the MP for Southwold, called The Times from Paris. “I think we will all take heart from this,” he said. Though this legal skirmish was won on a technicality, he said: “You have to fight on the minutiae. That’s how you win these battles. It will mean that Natural England will have to think again before it imposes these sorts of things on individuals.”

He also believed it would “bring more pressure on a very important issue, which is that if you don’t allow someone to defend their own property then you must compensate them”.

Not only are some clifftop householders barred from defending their property, they may have to pay at least £3,000 for its demolition by the council.

“In shoreline management plans. . . serious efforts are afoot to withdraw from any sort of defence of coastline,” Mr Gummer said. “This will show people that they can fight and they can win.”

Mr Boggis’s family bought the land upon which his home stands in 1904, buying part of an estate, much of which has since been swallowed by the sea. The pace of erosion appeared to increase in the 1980s and just over a decade ago Mr Boggis began casting around for a means to beat back the waves.

“I have to do something with my retirement, to get the grey cells going,” he said. Thirty folders of research on the subject of sea defence piled up in his study, and from 2002 until the end of 2005, he embarked on an ambitious project on the beach beneath the cliffs, with 250,000 tonnes of clay.

He cut an impressive figure on the rampart, with his greying beard and timbrous voice. He had no doubt that the money for his project would come, “with a little help and the grace of God. I believe if you put your shoulder to the wheel the rest of the world will fall into step beside you,” he said.

Natural England halted his work in the winter of 2005. It argued in the High Court that its concern related to some rather older residents of the area, signs of life from the Pleistocene era 1.8 millions years ago, now fossilised in the rock. John Horwell, QC, for Natural England, argued that many sites were designated SSSIs “because the process of erosion makes them interesting to scientists”.

In the event, Mr Justice Blair’s ruling was strictly for the birds. Attempting to stop the protection of the coastline by imposing an SSSI might have an adverse effect on a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds to the north. The judge ruled that Natural England should have performed an assessment first of the risk to the SPA.

Mr Boggis called it an indictment of the tangled mess in which Britain’s “environmental lobby” were caught, the “yellow-bellied cowards who should never have been put in charge of the welfare of this nation”.

He believes that his rampart may last at most another five years. Then, if the legal battle is finally won, he may start building another one.

Story by Will Pavia by the Times

A retired engineer has won the latest stage of his fight to protect his Suffolk home from falling into the sea.

Natural England wanted fossil-bearing cliffs near Southwold to be allowed to erode raising the prospect that some homes could fall into the sea.

But Peter Boggis, 77, installed his own defences near his Easton Bavents home.

High Court judge Mr Justice Blair ruled Natural England’s decision to permit erosion for “scientific reasons” was unlawful but an appeal can be made.

Living a nightmare

Mr Boggis said: “Mr Justice Blair’s judgment lifts a great shadow from my mind and gives hope for the future for those that live by the coast of Britain.

“We have lived a nightmare in recent years. Inconvenient or not to bureaucracy, the defence of the coast should not be walked away from.”

Natural England declared the area a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in 2006, which prevented Mr Boggis from maintaining his sea defence barrier.

I think it is obviously in the interests of the people whose homes are threatened that the sooner this matter is brought on the better Mr Justice Blair

But he had argued that Natural England had no legal right to stop him saving his home.

Mr Boggis spent tens of thousands of pounds building his own sea defences using 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soils to prevent his home and 13 others nearby from eventually slipping into the North Sea.

But the ruling means he will not be able to resume maintenance of his sea defences until the outcome of any appeal by Natural England.

The judge ruled that the intention behind the SSSI was to allow the destruction of Mr Boggis’s “soft sea defences” and the rapid erosion of the cliffs behind them.

Mr Justice Blair said this amounted to “a plan or project” which might have an adverse effect on a special protection area (SPA) for birds to the north of the Mr Boggis’ sea defences.

The judge ruled an “appropriate assessment” of the risk to the SPA should have been carried out to comply with the EU Habitats Directive. Natural England’s failure to do so was contrary to its duties under European law.

The judge said: “I think it is obviously in the interests of the people whose homes are threatened that the sooner this matter is brought on the better.”

In a statement Natural England said it did not want to prevent Mr Boggis from protecting his home but he had not obtained planning permission from his local authority or a waste licence from the Environment Agency.

A spokeswoman said the principle of “conservation instead of preservation” had been upheld and believed the judge had backed their case in principle, but not the process used to designate the site.

Natural England would be appealing and remained “very confident”, she said.

Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England, said they had a legal duty to designate “areas of national conservation importance”.

A spokesperson for Waveney District Council, the local authority where Mr Boggis lives, said: “This is a complex matter in ‘unusual circumstances’ yet the judgement shows that Waveney District Council acted appropriately throughout.

“We are content that our actions have been vindicated.”

The judge awarded Mr Boggis 80% of his legal costs.

Story on BBC News

A retired engineer who earned the nickname King Canute because of his efforts to save his clifftop home from the sea has won a High Court battle to continue maintaining his local tidal defences.

Peter Boggis, 77, spent tens of thousands of pounds building earth barriers to protect his home at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, Suffolk, and those of his neighbours which are threatened by erosion to the cliffs on they stand.

But Natural England, the Government conservation agency previously known as English Nature, wants the fossil-rich cliffs to wear away, exposing strata of soil and rock for study.

Two years ago, the organisation had the area declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) effectively banning Mr Boggis from maintaining the “soft sea defences”.

In a legal challenge brought last month Mr Boggis claimed that Natural England’s action was outside its powers and could have serious implications for other clifftop communities threatened with erosion.

His lawyers argued that SSSIs were intended to conserve rare plants, animals or geological features and not to study the results of cliff destruction.

Mr Justice Blair, the brother of the former Prime Minister, ruled that it was unlawful to allow the houses to be sacrificed to the sea for scientific reasons.

“Without some form of defence, the claimants’ homes will soon be swept away by the sea, and their very human predicament must be taken account of too,” he said.

But he ruled that the decision to designate the zone an SSSI – other than around the threatened houses – was “otherwise lawful.”

“(This) judgment lifts a great shadow from my mind and gives hope for the future for those that live by the coast of Britain,” said Mr Boggis.

“We have lived a nightmare in recent years.

“Inconvenient or not to bureaucracy, the defence of the coast should not be walked away from.”

The judge also told the court that allowing the cliffs to crumble could threaten the habitat of seabirds in a nearby Special Protection Area (SPA).

Natural England’s failure to carry out an “appropriate assessment” of the risk to that site could put it in breach of its obligations under European law, he said.

Mr Boggis paid to place 250,000 tons of compacted clay onto the beach below the clifftop dwellings to protect them from the encroaching North Sea.

The defences have already been eroded to around one fifth of that amount and urgently need topping up, Gregory Jones, representing Mr Boggis, told the court.

Canute, the Norse king of Denmark, Norway and England who died in 1035, is fabled to have had his throne set up on a beach to demonstrate to his courtiers that he did not have the power to turn back the tide.

But Mr Jones told the hearing last month: “This is not a case of King Canute. These barriers do work and have had the effect of slowing the erosion of the cliffs.”

Mr Boggis will still not be able to resume maintenance of his sea defences until after a possible appeal by Natural England against the ruling.

The agency argued that it had a legitimate scientific interest in allowing the sea to erode the cliffs.

The sediments and fossils in the area are said to date back up to two million years and are considered to be of national importance.

Story by John Bingham in the Telegraph

A campaigner fighting for the right to maintain sea defences in front of a small community of clifftop homes will have to wait for a judge’s ruling.

Peter Boggis, 77, of Easton Bavents, near Southwold, has been at the High Court, in London, this week to challenge Natural England’s plans to allow erosion of the cliffs for scientific reasons.

Mr Justice Blair has now reserved judgment on the case, meaning there will be no immediate ruling.

Retired engineer Mr Boggis has used 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soils to construct defences in a bid to save his and 13 other homes from slipping into the North Sea.

However, Natural England has made the area a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) so the cliffs can be allowed to erode naturally and expose stratas of soil and rock for study. This means Mr Boggis is currently legally prevented from maintaining the defences.

Story by Alasdair McGregor in the Eastern Daily Press

You could call him a latter-day Canute: like the legendary Danish king of England, Peter Boggis is bidding the North Sea to retreat.

But while the Viking monarch tried to stop the incoming waves to show fawning courtiers that even the power of kings had its limitations, Mr Boggis is deadly serious. Those same waves are rapidly eroding the cliffs in front of his home in Easton Bavents, near Southwold in Suffolk, and since the Second World War have claimed 14 of the 28 houses that made up the small seaside community. His own home is now only 80 metres from the cliff edge, which is getting closer every year.

Mr Boggis’s response has been to organise his own sea defences – a kilometre-long embankment at the foot of the cliffs made up largely of 250,000 tonnes of building waste, brought in over several years by lorry. These are “soft” sea defences which themselves erode every year and need to be topped up – but while they are there, the erosion of the cliffs is halted.

However, Mr Boggis has fallen foul of Natural England, the Government’s wildlife conservation body, which in its previous incarnation as English Nature declared the cliffs a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for their geological value – they are a rich source of fossils. That means his topping-up of the sea defences with more waste soil and building materials is regarded as a “potentially damaging operation” to the site – and is illegal, and has had to stop.

Mr Boggis, 77, has sought refuge in the law, and this week he has been at the High Court in London seeking a judicial review of the decision to make the cliffs an SSSI. He has expressed outrage with an official policy he says will force him to allow his home to be destroyed. Much of his anger is directed at the current thinking behind coastal defence in East Anglia, which maintains that the sea cannot be held back in some areas – especially with future sea-level rise due to global climate change – and prescribes a course to be followed of “managed realignment” or “managed retreat”.

“The idea of ‘managed retreat’ I find anathema,” he said “and this because of the fact that, as I have frequently argued, there is no management involved in running away from the sea. It’s a cowardly policy. They are a lot of yellow dogs running away with their tails between their legs.”

Mr Boggis, a retired engineer, said that in 1991 – when his home was 50m further away from the cliff edge than it is now – he informed his local authority, Waveney District Council, that if it was not prepared to protect that section of the coast, he would do it himself. He began to work on pilot schemes for soft sea defences, and when it became apparent that they would work, he eventually set in train the major construction operation – at his own expense. The force of the SSSI notification is that the defences will have to be abandoned. His challenge to it was this week being heard before Mr Justice Blair, with judgment expected to be reserved.

“The outcome of this judgment is extremely critical for the freedom of British communities to live on the coastline of this country, because we are fighting for the right to conserve our land and home,” Mr Boggis said. “If I lose this case, it will prove that Natural England has been given the dictatorial power to destroy the homes of people on the coast of Britain. It will also prove, contrary to the beliefs of most normal people, that the word ‘conservation’ no longer means to preserve. It can now be used to insist upon the unnecessary destruction of this nation.”

Natural England declined to comment while the case was in progress.

Story by Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor in the Independent

Natural England has defended its right to allow the sea to erode cliffs for scientific reasons, even though people’s homes are at risk.

The statutory body responsible for looking after wild plants, animals and the natural features of England was under attack at the High Court in London because it wants fossil-bearing cliffs on the north Suffolk coast to be allowed to wear away, exposing stratas of soil and rock for study.

Retired engineer Peter Boggis, aged 77, who lives on the clifftop at The Warren, Easton Bavents, near Southwold, accused the body of acting outside its statutory powers when it notified the cliffs as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in 2006, protecting the erosion process.

Mr Boggis had earlier built his own sea defences to prevent erosion and save his clifftop home and 13 others nearby from eventually slipping into the North Sea.

But the SSSI designation means he can no longer maintain the “soft sea defences’”, which cost him tens of thousands of pounds to construct, using about 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soils.

Mr Boggis, who said he is fighting for the legal right to protect his home, estimates only 50,000 tonnes of soil remain, the rest having been washed away.

It is estimated that the clifftop homes will all disappear within the next 50 years as the cliffs crumble, unless they are protected.

Mr Boggis said one house was already just 10 metres from the cliff edge, and his own chalet bungalow about 80 metres.

His lawyers argued before Mr Justice Blair, sitting at London’s High Court, that SSSIs were meant to conserve and protect flora, fauna and landscape features – not allow them to be destroyed.

But yesterday, the second day of the hearing, John Howell QC, appearing for Natural England, argued many sites had been declared SSSIs “because the process of erosion makes them interesting to scientists”.

Mr Howell argued if Mr Boggis was to win his legal challenge it could frustrate geological investigations and curtail understanding of how the English landscape had evolved.

Allowing erosion to continue assisted investigations “in a way not possible if materials remain underground and unexposed’”.

Mr Howell said Natural England was not arguing that sea defences could not be constructed in every case, but geological interest always had to be weighed in the balance against other considerations.

But Mr Boggis said outside court yesterday: “What is happening is an absolute travesty of justice, not only for me but for all the people living at Easton Bavents. It is also a great threat to those living on coastal cliffs throughout the nation.”

The hearing continues today.

Story in the Eastern Daily Press

Peter Boggis, aged 77, built his own costal defences to prevent erosion and save his home and those of his neighbours in north Suffolk.

But Natural England, the body previously known as English Nature, wants the fossil-bearing cliffs on which the houses stand to wear away, exposing strata of soil and rock for study.

In 2006, it declared the area a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Mr Boggis was banned from maintaining his “soft sea defences”.

The barrier initially consisted of 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soils Mr Boggis had brought in to protect 14 homes at Easton Bavents, near Southwold.

It has now been eroded to around 50,000 tonnes of soil and the homes run the risk of eventually slipping into the North Sea.

Yesterday , Mr Boggis took his battle to save his home to the High Court, arguing that Natural England was acting outside of its powers by creating the SSSI.

He believes that the outcome of his case could have wider implications for thousands of people living in coastal erosion sites.

His lawyer, Gregory Jones, told Mr Justice Blair – the brother of the former prime minister – that the purpose of SSSIs was normally to “conserve or preserve” flora, fauna or geological features, not to study the results of cliff destruction.

He added: “Allowing the erosion of the cliffs in one year or two years, means they will no longer be the same cliffs as those there one or two years before. You have not conserved and you have not preserved them.”

He said Mr Boggis’ barrier could save all the homes on the site.

“They obviously require topping up – but this is not a case of King Canute,” he said.

“These barriers do actually work and have had the effect of slowing the erosion of the cliffs.”

But Natural England argued it had a legitimate scientific interest in allowing the sea to erode the cliffs.

The sediments and fossils in the area are said to be of national importance because they date back up to two million years.

Outside court, Mr Boggis’ solicitor Peter Scott said Natural England itself expected the whole of Easton Bavents would be gone in 50 years.

He said Mr Boggis stands little chance of getting fair compensation from the Government if he loses his home because of the existence of the SSSI.

Mr Boggis said his case could have wide implications and is “extremely critical for all people living on the coast”.

“What is happening is an absolute travesty of justice, not only for me but for all the people living at Easton Bavents. It is also a great threat to those living on coastal cliffs throughout the nation,” he said.

Story by Aislinn Simpson in the Telegraph, also covered in the East Anglian Daily Times and the Eastern Daily Press

A legal victory by the tenant of a cliff-top chalet in East Anglia is good news for everybody living on the coast of England, it was claimed last night.

Charles England, the tenant of a chalet at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, has won an appeal against a refusal by conservation body Natural England to allow him to maintain the shingle sea defences protecting his property.

Last night his neighbour, Peter Boggis, who has spent £500,000 constructing his own sea defences along that stretch of coastline, said: “This decision has repercussions for everybody living on the coast of England. It means bureaucracy no longer has the upper hand to bully people and assure the destruction of their properties.”

Retired engineer Mr Boggis, who is spokesman for Easton Bavents Conservation and is fighting his own legal battle against Natural England over his defences, added: “I am thankful to the inspector and the secretary of state for the clarity of their decision.

“It has been hell to watch my, and my neighbour’s, property being destroyed at the whim of dictatorial agencies, having personally taken care to protect them without cost to the nation until forced to neglect them by Natural England in December 2005.”

Natural England, which declared the area a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) argued that protecting the cliffs would prevent access, study and analysis of geological exposures in the cliff. It said it was in the national interest that natural erosion should continue, and that this outweighed Mr England’s human rights.

But independent inspector Kenneth Smith reported to Defra that, contrary to Natural England’s insistence, the site’s special scientific interest was better served by protecting it against erosion than by allowing it to be destroyed.

He also decided that Natural England’s plans to force erosion on the occupiers would constitute an “unnecessary and disproportionate interference” with human rights.

His report has been accepted by environment secretary David Miliband, who has directed Natural England to issue a consent to recharge and maintain the part of the so-called “soft” sea defence in front of Mr England’s property. Mr England’s solicitor, Peter Scott, said: “This is a ground-breaking decision. It shows that Natural England are likely to be unable, through the creation of SSSIs, to force people to lose their properties to coastal erosion without paying compensation. This is a very significant development in a long-running campaign to save Easton Bavents from being destroyed by the North Sea”. Natural England was not available for comment.

Story by Jon Welch in the EDP